Notice To Existing Co-Owner Mandatory Before Mutation Of Land Purchased Through Sale Deed: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that a mutation granted without issuing notice to an existing co-owner of the land is contrary to Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The Court declined to interfere with the Assam Board of Revenue's order setting aside such mutation, while clarifying that the purchaser remains at liberty to seek mutation afresh in accordance with law.The judgment was delivered by Justice Devashis Baruah, who observed, "In the instant case, as the Respondent No.4's name was already mutated along with the vendors of the Petitioner in respect to the same plot of land. Irrespective of the fact that only a portion of the land have been sold to the Petitioner, it was therefore the requirement of law that notice ought to have been issued to the Respondent No.4."The Court further held, "This Court has duly taken note of the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) in RA(M) No.3/2015-16 and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) by duly applying Section 52 of the Regulation had held that the mutation so carried out without issuance of notice to one of the co-owners of the land was in violation of Section 52 of the Regulation, cannot be said to be wrong application of law. The said aspect has been therefore affirmed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue."The petitioner had entered into an agreement for purchase of 10 lechas of land out of a larger plot and, thereafter, obtained a registered sale deed on March 12, 2008. [A lecha is a traditional unit of land measurement used in the Indian state of Assam]. On the strength of the sale deed, the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, mutated the land in his favour in March, 2014.The mutation was challenged by the contesting respondent, whose name had already been mutated over the same land along with her brothers, who were also the petitioner's vendors. She contended that the mutation had been granted without issuing notice to her. The Additional Deputy Commissioner accepted the challenge and set aside the mutation. The Assam Board of Revenue affirmed that decision, following which the petitioner approached the High Court.The High Court examined whether the order of the Assam Board of Revenue called for interference in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Referring to Sub-Section (1) of Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, the Court stated,“it is apparently clear that upon receiving an application, the Deputy Commissioner is required to publish a notice requiring all persons who object to the registration of the name of the applicant or who disputes the nature or extent of interest in respect of which registration is applied for, to give a written statement of their objections and to appear on the day to be specified in the notice of not less than 1 (one) month from the date thereof.”The Court found that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had correctly applied Section 52 while setting aside the mutation and that the Assam Board of Revenue had rightly affirmed that decision."This Court has duly taken note of the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) in RA(M) No.3/2015-16 and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) by duly applying Section 52 of the Regulation had held that the mutation so carried out without issuance of notice to one of the co-owners of the land was in violation of Section 52 of the Regulation, cannot be said to be wrong application of law. The said aspect has been therefore affirmed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue," the Court observed.Noting that the Assam Board of Revenue had already granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Circle Officer for mutation afresh, the Court held that the writ petition was not a fit case for interference under Article 226. It accordingly dismissed the writ petition, while clarifying that the dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner's right to seek mutation afresh on the basis of the registered sale deed in accordance with law.Case Name: Pual Das v. State of Assam & Ors.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 97Case No.: WP(C) No. 5512/2025Click here to read the judgment

Notice To Existing Co-Owner Mandatory Before Mutation Of Land Purchased Through Sale Deed: Gauhati High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

Notice To Existing Co-Owner Mandatory Before Mutation Of Land Purchased Through Sale Deed: Gauhati High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers